9/11 media happenings

[editor]

Thanks for the links.
I am a structural design engineer, hence my interest in all information on this subject.

Really? Could you give me some examples of the buildings you have worked on?

 

[TeeJay]

...I do know what I'm talking about on this, I used to be in the Army working on air-defense systems

How many posts before the loons start saying you are part of the black ops cover up?

Except you couldn't be because otherwise you wouldn't be saying that you *were* ex-army, you'd be denying it, iyswim.

Hmmm, so how long before a double-bluff/triple-bluff is alledged? (etc etc)

 

[8den]

Thanks for the links.
I am a structural design engineer, hence my interest in all information on this subject. If that makes me a conspiraloon in your books, then so be it.

Please provide evidence that you are a structural enigneer.

For example discuss how buildings are actually brought down in a CD.

Scientists will argue no doubt until well, probably the end of time, as to whether the buildings were demomished with explosives or not.

Nope scientists are pretty much satisfied with the the offical account that two fupping massive jets were the cause.

I just went by the official govenment reports. That is the FEMA report and the 9/11 comission report.

They couldn't (wouldn't?) answer these questions, so I don't know why you think you can dismiss them.

The NIST report into building 7 is pending

However if you cannot wait
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Is a very extensive explanation into the collaspe of building seven.

To summerise building seven was struck by several large chunks of the towers, had significant fires raging for hours, and was full of combustible material.

 

[editor]

Scientists will argue no doubt until well, probably the end of time, as to whether the buildings were demomished with explosives or not.

Exactly which scientists - armed with the relevant expertise and qualifications, of course - are arguing that the buildings were brought down by explosives, please?

 

[pocketscience]

Really? Could you give me some examples of the buildings you have worked on?

PM'd

 

[pocketscience]

Exactly which scientists - armed the relevant expertise and qualifications, of course - are arguing that the buildings were brought down by explosives, please?

Well I guess Jones would be the most qualified.
His qualifacations certainly outstrip this guy who you provided a debunking link for:
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
who appears to be a "Graphic Artist" of all things

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah, but Jones is almost universally recognised as a Mormon loon – and a pretty lonely one now as well, he’s resigned both from the university he was at and from “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”.

 

[8den]

Well I guess Jones would be the most qualified.
His qualifacations certainly outstrip this guy who you provided a debunking link for:
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
who appears to be a "Graphic Artist" of all things

Jones speciality was Cold Fusion a field of physics that is highly theoritical. It has little relevant to pratical things like engineering or structural engineering.

Jones was placed on academic suspension because of his paper on 9/11, from his job as a professor, at Bingham Young University, and has since retired in academy disgrace. Not a ringing endorsement now is it.

The person who wrote the article isn't a "graphic Artist". Did you even read the page you linked to?

I have spent my academic life researching the intersections between art, science and religion, and have not been drawn up to this point to contemplate in any detail the events of 9/11. However two friends and colleagues have been deeply persuaded of the counter-orthodoxy, principally by Griffin, and to some extent Jones, so I emailed some initial comments objecting in general terms to what I saw, and still do, as a ‘conspiracy theory’ of the worst kind. When I say ‘worst kind’ I mean that the theory betrays the fundamental principles of what I hold good science to be. My first degree was a joint honours in Physics and Chemistry, and later on I completed an MSc in Software Engineering and have written hundreds of thousands of lines of code for big graphics programmes. Jointly these experiences have persuaded me that ‘Good Science’ is a matter of slow and careful investigation of data, with the continual awareness that one’s own emotional commitment to one result or another tends to make it overwhelmingly tempting to jump to conclusions ahead of the due process. Debugging large software programmes is very similar to the detective work in crime investigations, only one is personally the ‘criminal’ and even more likely to have an investment in one’s theories. Looking at the writings of those challenging the official line, I find little evidence of good science in this sense: it seems that the individuals promoting these ideas are already persuaded of their version of the ‘truth’. My interest in 9/11 is therefore partly personal – I am hoping to dissuade my friends of their adherence to the counter-orthodoxies – and partly that I believe in ‘Good Science’ as the basis for much more than academic arguments over the interpretation of events. I believe in ‘Good Science’ as fundamental to what we cherish, though often without naming them such, as ‘Enlightenment Values.’

But anyway pocketscientist, you're a structural engineer, you should be able to debunk the maths of the paper right?

I've love to see your calculation...

 

[Jazzz]

Yeah, but Jones is almost universally recognised as a Mormon loon – and a pretty lonely one now as well, he’s resigned both from the university he was at and from “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”.

He didn't resign from his university post, he has taken early retirement.

 

[DrRingDing]

Jones speciality was Cold Fusion a field of physics that is highly theoritical. It has little relevant to pratical things like engineering or structural engineering.

Jones was placed on academic suspension because of his paper on 9/11, from his job as a professor, at Bingham Young University, and has since retired in academy disgrace. Not a ringing endorsement now is it.

The person who wrote the article isn't a "graphic Artist". Did you even read the page you linked to?



But anyway pocketscientist, you're a structural engineer, you should be able to debunk the maths of the paper right?

I've love to see your calculation...

FFS that is a shite arguement "He's a programmer who's written a bit of code" well why didn't you say!

 

[8den]

He didn't resign from his university post, he has taken early retirement.

He was on academic suspension at the time of his "retirement", wildly seen as a way of letting the guy go with a modicum of dignity. He was forced out directly for his dingbat 9/11 paper.

FFS that is a shite arguement "He's a programmer who's written a bit of code" well why didn't you say!

You missed the bit about his degree in Physics and Chemistry, and Masters in Software Engineering, didn't you?

 

[DrRingDing]

He was on academic suspension at the time of his "retirement", wildly seen as a way of letting the guy go with a modicum of dignity. He was forced out directly for his dingbat 9/11 paper.



You missed the bit about his degree in Physics and Chemistry, and Masters in Software Engineering, didn't you?

A batchelors in Physics and chemistry is fuck all to do with engineering.

And software engineering has fuck all to do with structural engineering yer plonker...it's about writing code.

 

[8den]

A batchelors in Physics and chemistry is fuck all to do with engineering.

And software engineering has fuck all to do with structural engineering yer plonker...it's about writing code.

No! Gosh are you going to dazzle me with such pearls of insight and wisdom
I'm going to have to start writing them down.

Firstly I never directly linked to Mike King's website, although I find it intelligent well laid out site.

I find it interesting that you fixate on Mike who's obviously just an amateur conspiracy theorist debunker, while you avoid say for example, the popular mechanics link, the authors of which I can assure you know plently about structural engineering, civil engineering and physics, and have plenty of degrees and Phd's in their specialists field.

 

[Jazzz]

He was on academic suspension at the time of his "retirement", wildly seen as a way of letting the guy go with a modicum of dignity. He was forced out directly for his dingbat 9/11 paper.

No he wasn't - seems (I wasn't aware of this before) he was suspended, extraordinarily, for suggesting on a radio show that the real blame for 9/11 rests lies with an 'Internation Banking Cartel' - for which he was accused of being anti-semitic. Good god!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=93189

 

[DrRingDing]

I find it interesting that you fixate on Mike who's obviously just an amateur conspiracy theorist debunker, while you avoid say for example, the popular mechanics link, the authors of which I can assure you know plently about structural engineering, civil engineering and physics, and have plenty of degrees and Phd's in their specialists field.

Then please use those bods as references and not this joker so you don't look such a Herbert.

 

[Jazzz]

The bods he refers to aren't actually co-authors of the Popular Mechanics piece, they were simply drawn on in some way - who knows what. They didn't sign their name to the bottom of it.

The author of that article is a 'senior researcher' Mr. Benjamin Cherthoff, age 25. I don't know what qualifications he has.

e2a - it would appear none

 

[Dhimmi]

Everytime one of these threads comes along there's a pile of low posting arses chipping in to tell us the truth.

I don't know why the mods put up with it TBH. All the real u75ers know it's shit, all the mods know it's shit, and most of the world and their uncle know it's shit.

Now if I started a pile of threads which everyone knew to be shit I'd expect to be banned. But the generous spirits behind this board don't extend it to these arses.

Time for me and my chums at Mossad, CIA and Starbucks to influence things obviously.

 

[8den]

No he wasn't - seems (I wasn't aware of this before) he was suspended, extraordinarily, for suggesting on a radio show that the real blame for 9/11 rests lies with an 'Internation Banking Cartel' - for which he was accused of being anti-semitic. Good god!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=93189

Do you have some masochist streak there Jazzz? I mean do you crave pwnage? Is that it?

BYU stripped Jones of two classes he was teaching when the university placed him on paid leave on Sept. 7 to review a paper he wrote about the physics behind the collapse of three towers on Sept. 11. He published a paper saying experiments he conducted at BYU on material from ground zero and other evidence led him to believe the towers fell because pre-set explosives were detonated throughout the buildings after the hijacked jets struck the Twin Towers.
BYU planned to review the paper to see if it met scientific standards of peer review. The university also expected to look at statements made by Jones at conferences and in the media and determine if Jones was appropriately distancing himself from BYU when he spoke about his explosives theory.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650200587,00.html

Then please use those bods as references and not this joker so you don't look such a Herbert.

Actually fuckwit I never included that link, Editor did.

I'm sure you can actually debunk what he writes than dismiss what he says, rather than the fact that he's an intelligent man who writes complex computer code and as a hobby debunks CTers.

The bods he refers to aren't actually co-authors of the Popular Mechanics piece, they were simply drawn on in some way - who knows what. They didn't sign their name to the bottom of it.

The author of that article is a 'senior researcher' Mr. Benjamin Cherthoff, age 25. I don't know what qualifications he has. It was claimed that he is the cousin of Michael Cherthoff. Also there were claims that a whole tier of staff at PM were sacked without notice just prior to that article coming out.

I assume you have some evidence to back up that WOOWOO right?

What are you suggesting, that what the popular mechanics article isn't kosher, and gets it's facts wrong?

 

[Jazzz]

From your own link 8Den

The university also expected to look at statements made by Jones at conferences and in the media and determine if Jones was appropriately distancing himself from BYU when he spoke about his explosives theory.

I don't see anything that is disputed in the link I gave - it seems it was his statements in the radio interview and complaints that provoked the suspension (on full pay), and the uni said it would review those statements and his paper as well. In the link I gave, which is far more detailed than yours, many bodies criticised that decision:

The American Association of University Professors criticized BYU's decision to place Jones on paid leave for his comments on the radio program.

AAUP general secretary Roger Bowen called BYU's decision "distressing" and said Jones shouldn't be removed from teaching classes for statements made outside the classroom.

"Academic freedom also protects extramural utterances, that is, statements made by faculty outside the classroom when they speak as citizens," Bowen told the Deseret Morning News. "It's very clear there never should be official retribution for faculty who exercise their rights as citizens, with the very careful disclaimer they are not speaking on behalf of the university."

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education joined the criticism of the BYU decision against Jones.

"BYU is literally the example we use of a university that does not promise strong free speech or academic freedom protections," FIRE president Greg Lukianoff said.

He's retired - he wasn't sacked, he didn't resign, no-one has expressed fault with his paper.

 

[Jazzz]

I assume you have some evidence to back up that WOOWOO right?

What are you suggesting, that what the popular mechanics article isn't kosher, and gets it's facts wrong?

I am simply correcting your assertion that there are many qualified authors of the PM piece, because they are not authors, the only actual author is a 25-year-old unqualified Mr. Benjamin Cherthoff. I edited out the claim referred to about him being related to Michael Cherthoff as that seems questionable and he denies it.

The main criticism of that article (which surely you can find) is not that it gets its facts wrong but that it is a 'straw man' which only selects weak arguments to knock down.

 

[pocketscience]

Jones speciality was Cold Fusion a field of physics that is highly theoritical. It has little relevant to pratical things like engineering or structural engineering.

Jones was placed on academic suspension because of his paper on 9/11, from his job as a professor, at Bingham Young University, and has since retired in academy disgrace. Not a ringing endorsement now is it.

The person who wrote the article isn't a "graphic Artist". Did you even read the page you linked to?



But anyway pocketscientist, you're a structural engineer, you should be able to debunk the maths of the paper right?

I've love to see your calculation...

I think you better stick to Top Trumps 8den!
Na, come to think of it......

 

[8den]

From your own link 8Den



I don't see anything that is disputed in the link I gave - it seems it was his statements in the radio interview and complaints that provoked the suspension (on full pay), and the uni said it would review those statements and his paper as well. In the link I gave, which is far more detailed than yours, many bodies criticised that decision:

Bollocks the main reason is because of his paper.

So he wasn't being suspended because of and I quote

he was suspended, extraordinarily, for suggesting on a radio show that the real blame for 9/11 rests lies with an 'Internation Banking Cartel' - for which he was accused of being anti-semitic. Good god!

he wasn't suspended to censor him, or what he said, but they are now examing what he said, as well.

I am simply correcting your assertion that there are many qualified authors of the PM piece, because they are not authors, the only actual author is a 25-year-old unqualified Mr. Benjamin Cherthoff. I edited out the claim referred to about him being related to Michael Cherthoff as that seems questionable and he denies it.

Again I assume you can provide a link to this piece of WOO WOO.

Cause this is the list of authors;

Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.

And the list of experts they consulted

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

Benjamin wrote this with half a dozen people, and they consulted over 50 experts in various fields. Suggesting this is just the work of one 25yo is blatant bullshit.

So still suggesting that tier of staff were fired, any evidence? And what do you imply this means?

The main criticism of that article (which surely you can find) is not that it gets its facts wrong but that it is a 'straw man' which only selects weak arguments to knock down.

Phuluzze it focus on controlled demolition, flight93, WTC7, NORAD, it's an incredibly through article.

He's retired - he wasn't sacked, he didn't resign, no-one has expressed fault with his paper.

Oh really?

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Spits out coffee, really? really? No one? Not even the head of the civil engineering school, in his own college

And whats this;

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/people.php?person=1&page=miller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1874

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y


The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.

http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

 

[8den]

I think you better stick to Top Trumps 8den!
Na, come to think of it......

Wow an ad homien instead of actual evidence, waaayyyy to convince me you're a structural engineer.

 

[pocketscience]

Everytime one of these threads comes along there's a pile of low posting arses chipping in to tell us the truth.

I don't know why the mods put up with it TBH. All the real u75ers know it's shit, all the mods know it's shit, and most of the world and their uncle know it's shit.

Now if I started a pile of threads which everyone knew to be shit I'd expect to be banned. But the generous spirits behind this board don't extend it to these arses.

Time for me and my chums at Mossad, CIA and Starbucks to influence things obviously.

....and your views on finite element analysis?

 

[pocketscience]

Wow an ad homien instead of actual evidence, waaayyyy to convince me you're a structural engineer.

.......and how do you suggest I do that? No, convince me it's worth it first!
Are you calling me a liar?

 

[8den]

.......and how do you suggest I do that? No, convince me it's worth it first!
Are you calling me a liar?

Scientists will argue no doubt until well, probably the end of time, as to whether the buildings were demomished with explosives or not.

Do you believe credible scientists believe in controlled demolition?

Do you think the controlled demoltion argument has any merit?

 

[pocketscience]

Do you believe credible scientists believe in controlled demolition?

Well at least one has admitted he does. I should imagine most institutions are simply too scared to do the research, through fear of being hounded out of their jobs and funding while this administration is in place! It's certainly worrying that the 911 commission couldn't afford a single cent to dispell such claims with a qualified independent team, whilst the Govt were given a cool 350 billion to search for WMDs in Iraq at the time.

Do you think the controlled demoltion argument has any merit?

Initially no, but I'm keeping an open mind on it nowadays. Nothing along these lines would surprise me anymore, TBH.

E2a Oh, do you still think I'm a liar?
...because if you do, it's hardly worth asking me questions or me replying, is it!

 

[8den]

Well at least one has admitted he does.

And has been discredited by his own department, and had to retire.

He also was incapable of getting the paper published in a single reputible physics or structural engineering journal.

As a structural engineer I'm sure you appreciate the importance and signifigance of that fact.

I should imagine most institutions are simply too scared to do the research, through fear of being hounded out of their jobs and funding while this administration is in place!

What about British institutes, both Leeds and Sheffield universities have written reports confirming the NIST account, They cannot be terrified of being hounded out of their jobs, by this administration. Hell here's a link to a chinese paper that confirms the NIST findings. Is there a professor in China terrified George Bush will take away his tenure?

Furthermore most Colleges and Universities in america don't rely solely on government funding, they're privately funded. So suggesting the government might bully them to toe the line.

The one physists spouting conspiracy theories, has retired, with a he himself admits "pretty standard" severance package, so it's not as if every civil and structural engineer in america is terrified they'll be left penniless and homeless.

Are you really claiming the entirity of academia is terrified of losing their jobs so therefore they won't put their names to research that the Bush administration won't like?

What about all these scientists
10,600 Scientists Condemn Bush Administration

It's certainly worrying that the 911 commission couldn't afford a single cent to dispell such claims with a qualified independent team,

What was the NIST investigation then? a report 4 years in the making the body of work by 100s of scientists engineers and investigators, by an independent body with a operating budget annually of £960million?

whilst the Govt were given a cool 350 billion to search for WMDs in Iraq at the time.
Initially no, but I'm keeping an open mind on it nowadays. Nothing along these lines would surprise me anymore, TBH.

You're a structural engineer? Have you read the NIST report? Or any of it's summeries?

What do you find questionable or wrong about it?

If you've not read the NIST report, as a structural engineer, someone with the ability to disect it's findings why aren't you interested in?

If you've read any conspiracy theories on the Collaspe of WTC 1&2 and WTC 7, can you, as a structural engineer, explain to me what you found plausible or of scientific merit with the conspiracy theories?

E2a Oh, do you still think I'm a liar?
...because if you do, it's hardly worth asking me questions or me replying, is it!

I don't think you're doing a very good job convincing me. Any structural engineer I've chatted to about the WTC 1&2 and WTC 7 conspiracy theories, aren't swayed one iota by the WooWoos.

 

[pocketscience]

And has been discredited by his own department, and had to retire.

He also was incapable of getting the paper published in a single reputible physics or structural engineering journal.

As a structural engineer I'm sure you appreciate the importance and signifigance of that fact.

I also appreciate the importance of a PhD at Stanford and Cornell.

What about British institutes, both Leeds and Sheffield universities have written reports confirming the NIST account, They cannot be terrified of being hounded out of their jobs, by this administration. Hell here's a link to a chinese paper that confirms the NIST findings. Is there a professor in China terrified George Bush will take away his tenure?


Furthermore most Colleges and Universities in america don't rely solely on government funding, they're privately funded. So suggesting the government might bully them to toe the line.

The one physists spouting conspiracy theories, has retired, with a he himself admits "pretty standard" severance package, so it's not as if every civil and structural engineer in america is terrified they'll be left penniless and homeless.

Are you really claiming the entirity of academia is terrified of losing their jobs so therefore they won't put their names to research that the Bush administration won't like?

What about all these scientists
10,600 Scientists Condemn Bush Administration

Now you're talking.....

What was the NIST investigation then? a report 4 years in the making the body of work by 100s of scientists engineers and investigators, by an independent body with a operating budget annually of £960million?

Really, I thought it wasn't independent, rather an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department.

You're a structural engineer? Have you read the NIST report? Or any of it's summeries?

No, not the entire report. To be honest it's totally irrelevant to my field of work in structural engineering. Out of interest I will give it a browse at some point though.

BTW - have you read it?

What do you find questionable or wrong about it?

If you've not read the NIST report, as a structural engineer, someone with the ability to disect it's findings why aren't you interested in?

See above.

If you've read any conspiracy theories on the Collaspe of WTC 1&2 and WTC 7, can you, as a structural engineer, explain to me what you found plausible or of scientific merit with the conspiracy theories?

You asked me that before with the question:
"Do you think the controlled demoltion argument has any merit?"
and I answered:
"Initially no, but I'm keeping an open mind on it nowadays. Nothing along these lines would surprise me anymore, TBH."
So you're kind of wasting your time.

I don't think you're doing a very good job convincing me. Any structural engineer I've chatted to about the WTC 1&2 and WTC 7 conspiracy theories, aren't swayed one iota by the WooWoos.

Do you honestly think I give a monkeys about convincing you of anything.

 

[TeeJay]

...To be honest it's totally irrelevant to my field of work in structural engineering...

Let me guess - you put up scaffolding?